The identification of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:4 as fallen angelic beings has been widely popularized in Christian evangelical and Pentecostal circles by Chuck Missler.1 Recently, a more scholarly argument, proposed by Ronald S. Hendel, uses findings from the Dead Sea Scrolls to argue that a fragment of Deuteronomy 32:8 clearly shows the Hebrew bĕnê ۥēlîm to be “sons of God” instead of “sons of Israel” as in the Masoretic text. This allegedly gives the text a more mythological flavor. I would argue that it is not mythological but metaphorical. Hendel proposes that this provides evidence that the Genesis 6:4 text should be seen as employing mythological language as well. We also have evidence from 4Q532 and other Qumran documents that the Qumran community interpreted the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:4 as fallen angels.2
In the early church, Augustine (Sixth Century) and Cyril of Alexandria (Fifth Century) both denied the theory that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:4 were angelic beings. An even earlier denial of this theory was made by Julius Africanus (late Second to early Third Century) known to us through Eusebius. He was apparently a Hebrew and Greek scholar and church historian concerned with careful exegesis of biblical texts.3
Of course, if we are to understand the Genesis 6:4 text as speaking of fallen angels who have intercourse with women, we have a clear contradiction with Matthew 22:30 and Luke 20:35, 36 which says in the resurrection, we neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels. Now if our condition in the resurrection is “like the angels” then not to marry or be given in marriage (i.e. not having sexual intercourse) is the condition. One could argue that this does not preclude the possibility of sexual intercourse, but then one must wonder why Matthew and Luke would mention this in the first place if that is not what is meant. A fairly well-known proponent of the position that angels can have sex with women argues in his book “The Genesis Record”4 that in the resurrection, men and women must retain their personal identity as men and women, so angels are not “sexless” (p. 166). However, that is not the point of the texts in Matthew and Luke which is that like the angels there is no procreation. He then goes on to argue a contrary point that the “sons of God” could actually be men possessed of demons (p. 168). Which is it? Are they men, as I argue, or are they fallen angels?
“Sons of God” as a clear title of angels (or at least heavenly beings) is found in Job 1:6, 2:1 and 38:7. Mention is also made in Psalm 29:1 (bĕnē ۥēlîm) where the phrase is translated “heavenly beings” in the NIV. Clearly, heaven is seen as the realm of God and other beings who present themselves to and converse with God. The reference is to godly beings which naturally have an audience with God. However, Satan is referred to as separate from this group. So, if the term “sons of God” is simply a synonym for angelic beings, then why is Satan or Lucifer, who is also an angelic being, though fallen, (Isaiah 14:12) distinct? Perhaps the term does not refer to angelic beings at all, but instead to beings both heavenly and human who “walk with God.” This might explain the reference in Luke 3:37 that Adam was a “son of God” in that he walked with God.
Missler’s attack on the Scofield bible reference to Isaiah 43:6 further confirms my point. Isaiah 43:6 “my sons and daughters” is another way of saying “sons of God” and “daughters of God” or Old Testament believers. Other Old Testament references to “sons of God” or “children of God” refer to believers. Deuteronomy 32:5 and Psalm 73:15 allude to “his sons” with the pronoun antecedent “God,” all the while referencing people in the context (cf. also, Deuteronomy 14:1 and Hosea 1:10). All of these references refer to the “sons of God” as Old Testament believers. Genesis 6:4 should be included among the other texts mentioned here as referencing godly believers.
It is best to understand this passage in the context of contrasting two genealogical lines: of Cain (4:17-26) and Seth (5:3-32); Cain and his progeny were the sons of men and Seth and his progeny were the godly line-- the sons of God. The sons of God were normally godly men (Seth's line) who sinned by inter-marrying with women from ungodly homes (Cain's line). Proponents of the theory that angels are having sex with women seem to forget that all the references of “sons of God” in the Bible as angels are not references to fallen angels. As mentioned before, “sons of God” are references to angels aligned with God or men and women “walking with God.” The activity described here in Genesis 6 is not a discussion of behavior right before the flood, but of behavior of men and women post-Adam for hundreds of years before the flood—godly men being allured by ungodly women so that by the time of the flood there was no one walking with God except for Noah and his family.
Nephilim, (nĕpilîm “giants” or gigantes in the Septuagint, see Brown, Driver, Briggs, p. 658), their offspring, simply refers to large “mighty men of valor (ha gĕbarîm)” honored as such after their deaths.5 The emphasis with the use of nĕpilîm is on their valor in battle and death, not on their physical stature. The nĕpilîm lived before and after the Flood of Genesis, so any physical connection between the pre- and post-diluvial mention would be on the assumption that the original nĕpilîm were not killed off by the Flood. The Philistine Goliath probably was a descendent from post-diluvian nĕpilîm. There is no textual requirement to understand giants as descendants from a supposed union between angels and humans. The Hebrew root for the Aramaic gbrye ۥ “mighty” is used to describe actions of God whether in judgment (Genesis 7:18) or love (Psalm 103:11). It is used in 2 Samuel 1:23 to describe the strength of Saul and Jonathan as warriors. In Psalm 65:3, the word is used to describe being “overwhelmed by sins.” The segolate form geber is used in Exodus 10:11, 12:37, Joshua 7:14-17 and Isaiah 22:7 to describe men doing masculine work (such as warfare--as opposed to women and children) presumably because they have the strength to do it.
The Septuagint translators used the term hoi gigantes a form of the word gigas(also used for nĕpilîm in the only other reference in Numbers 13:33) which refers to “sons of Gaia”, a race of giants destroyed by the gods. If the translators are actually making a reference to this myth, then it only proves the influence that this myth had on the Judaism of the time. It could be that they are using the word simply to translate as “mighty men of valor” or “giants” without a mythical reference. In either case, this does not necessitate acceptance by Christians of pagan myths or rabbinic musings. Missler’s entire argument seems to be based on a refutation of physical lines. But I have already pointed out that “sons of God” can refer to godly men as well as angels. The one who knows God and can be called His child is a “son of God” whether in the Old or the New Testament.
